Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 10, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Despite my own thoughts on the matter, it's incorrect to label Cody Hall as "...the young driver who ran down..." He's still entitled to a fair trial in which his guilt may or may not be proven. Nice bit of reporting otherwise.

I wonder how his parents are feeling? If these parents had only made this young man suffer some consequences when he totaled 2 other cars or when he got speeding tickets maybe he would not have run these people down? Being a parent is a tough job and if you do it right rarely are your child's best friend!!

Posted by Phil Acio
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Sep 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm

Joe, I'm quite sure that when this trial begins, you won't see Hall's attorney argue that Cody didn't hit the cyclist with his car. The facts won't be the issue. Intent (or reckless disregard for life) will be what they will spend their time on. So while "ran down" could be exchanged for "struck and killed", it's for the most part, accurate.

Well, since this case made national and international news, I don't know why one would think that Cody Hall would fare any better with a jury chosen from out of this area. News reports of the driver's actions have shocked and appalled readers from all over the nation.

Mike wrote: "Marie, As members of the society in which young Cody was raised, we all share blame in this tragedy."

You're going to have to spell out your reasoning on that one for us, Mike. I don't get how anyone other than Cody Hall (and possibly the parents who brought him up) are responsible for his decision to speed at 85 mph on Foothill Road.

Sam, I take no responsibility for Cody Halls actions nor his parents inability to parent this child. I raised 2 children and it was never easy but if my child had totaled even 1 car he would not have been given a chance to total another while under my roof. He and his parents are responsible for his actions!

Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2013 at 10:30 pm

Mike simply means that when anyone commits a heinous crime like Cody Hall or Charles Manson did, all of society is to blame. Remember Manson didn't want to kill all those people, but it was that Beatles White Album that made him do it. That's all Mike is saying.

Posted by keep him locked up
a resident of Downtown
on Sep 12, 2013 at 9:51 am

Well if I am to blame for this sociopath then I will step right up and take responsibility for it as well as deciding and handing out the punishment. Life in prison. Keep this sociopath away from the rest of us who are alleged to be responsible for his crimes. That "everyone is to blame" nonsense is just dumb. I raised my kids to be responsible and I live my life in a manner that does not violate the law or cause harm to others. THAT and only that is where my responsibility lies.

Cody reflects society's failures; but if his mistakes serve to make yours feel smaller and less damaging, then I can understand your heightened interest in emphasizing rather than seeking ways to prevent them.

Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm

As Mike says Cody's mistakes are society's failures. It was the same with Charles Manson's mistakes, or Ted Bundy's mistakes, or Jack the Ripper's mistakes, or even Adolf Hitler's mistakes. One of the best ways to prevent further mistakes likes these is to remove these people from society.

Posted by Mike Cherry
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2013 at 11:06 pm

Sorry, folks, but the best way to prevent further tragic events like these is to reduce opportunities for them to occur in the first place. This means early intervention stratagems such as mandatory parenting courses, free on-demand child care (making the parenting courses less burdensome for all involved), and full societal commitment to a steady but sure rise in educational outcome.

To blame this kid as the sole agent in his developmental outcome is to express a blindness as to what we as a society didn't do but can do to ensure better (good) outcomes; to blame society without acknowledging the need for realistic societal interventions is simply a hollow exercise that doesn't begin to address the undeniable need to improve child socialization and development within our complex society.

This kid's parents clearly missed the boat. Universal, free, on-demand child-care, 24-7, might well have steered this kid in a less destructive, more productive, direction. Write your political representatives. Tell them you care about out children, all of them, and that you're personally willing to commit added resources toward making much needed programs available to all. Tell them you'll work for their campaigns if they acknowledge the need for such a program and are willing to genuinely commit themselves to its start-up and continued implementation.

I think that you've got to be kidding with us, Mike. You can't really believe that all parents in Pleasanton need to take a mandatory parenting course just because one particular family in Pleasanton completely botched its parenting responsibilities. Now if you want to argue that one particular father in Pleasanton needs to take mandatory parenting classes (when he finds time between his own felony weapons-related court appearances), then I think you may find a lot of agreement.

Posted by Mike Cherry
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 am

My comments have not been offered in a kidding manner, as Sam suggests; nor do I think they have merited Sam's cutesy, disingenuous remarks.

The world is much larger than Sam, Cody Hall, and his father. We need to move beyond a repetitive vendettas of words and begin talking about constructive ways by which we as a society might make such tragedies less likely in the future.

Most parents, I believe, tend to unwittingly reproduce both the bad and good aspects of their own parents' practices. A full-scale effort to educate ourselves in parenting, mandated no differently than we mandate kindergarten for our children, might well bring isolated parents into dialogue with others about how best to parent. I do not understand how someone can seriously dismiss this idea by disingenuously applying it to Cody's father after the tragic event has come and gone.

I am not suggesting mandatory parenting classes as a cure-all by itself. There are many Cody's out there, expressed in any number of bad decisions made by our youth. Many 'bad' kids wind up being 'bad' because their parents haven't had time for them, for any number of assorted reasons. (See, for example, parents forced to work two full-time jobs in order to keep families above poverty line.)

Nearly 40% of all births today are of single mothers who, after birth, are often forced immediately back into the work world. Who attends to the kids? Like I say, we need 24/7, free, universal on-demand childcare centers so that overwhelmed or distracted or clueless parents have a fallback for raising their kids. This would be good for families, and especially the kids.

Mandatory parenting classes, combined with universal, free childcare, would begin to move us beyond the sad state we are in where parents unwittingly reproduce the mistakes of their parents. With a genuine commitment by society, we could have less violence, and less criminal activity by our children and young adults.

As for Cody and his father, the very tragic damage has been done. Let's not let Sam's tendency to stew over this matter exclude constructive dialogue about possible ways to create a better society to live in than the one we have now.

Posted by right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 9:52 am

And, of course, those mandatory warehouses for our offspring should be run by union babysitters, right Mikie? It's not that you're just forwarding a socialist agenda, but you also want your gov't controlled institutions to funnel their money into unions.
'Free' universal childcare? There is no such thing. You're just promoting your agenda, projecting it on all parents, based on the bad actions in one instance. Kinda like banning all handguns because one deranged group of black kids decided to shoot a white guy out jogging.
Maybe adding the word 'proportional' to your preschool vocabulary might assist you in understanding the scope of our discussion.

The above link does an adequate job of reporting the extent of child neglect and child abuse in the United States. Wanna bet that this article is relevant to the case so many of you have been venting about?

Posted by Right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Neglect is truly sad and is a byproduct of the me-generational thinking espoused by the anything goes dems. The only thing worse is having your life cut short in the womb, never being given the opportunity to breath the free air. Fortunately, most parents are very attentive to their surviving offspring. Some would say too much so (ever hear of helicopter parents?). There have always been good and bad parents, as well as good and bad role models, but looking to the government for answers is not the right direction.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 14, 2013 at 7:54 amKathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

"Universal, free, on-demand child-care, 24-7" . . . or "It Takes a Village's Wallets." Even worse, what does that arrangement look like? Would there be limits on how many hours a child can spend there and what ages (6 weeks to 11 and then latch-key) or would it be an orphanage with a new spin? How many children max? Do you turn kids away when you hit the max? Is free food part of the plan? Beds? Thank goodness the world is much bigger than Mike Cherry.

If there was neglect, abuse, misguided child rearing, or just another cocky teenager realizing the error too late, another family has paid the highest price. Sadly, 24-7 young adult care of prison, with all the amenities, is not likely to make "Jack" a better man.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 14, 2013 at 3:37 pmKathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Bested by whom; you? Laughable.

You called for "Universal, free, on-demand child-care, 24-7." Now you attempt to look reasonable by truncating it to universal child care. An entirely different discussion. My position was articulate; I asked you to describe your plan. You have not.

I also lamented for the young man (prison will not likely make him a better person) and the family who suffered the loss (they may see justice served, but the loss is still a loss).
(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff for containing unverified or personal information.)

Posted by Mike Cherry
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 14, 2013 at 6:13 pm

...

My assertion of societal need and the proposal for so addressing is clear enough. We know what universal means, we know what child care centers are and can be, we know the strains placed upon modern day parents and the effects felt by the kids and ultimately the rest of society.

Without child care centers to help counter parents' understandable shortcomings, we are exposed to multiple media accounts of kids 'gone bad'. To simply blame the kid (as Sam has done), ..., is the height of arrogance and constitutes an unfounded rush to judgment; ...

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:47 pmKathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

You have offered a shell; do give us the details. Otherwise we have great statements like, "Without child care centers to help counter parents' understandable shortcomings" Have a kid, leave a kid. No parent education, no child intervention. So these are just dumping grounds.

Geesh, what's been going on here? I leave you kids alone for awhile and now this thread is a mess. To your rooms, all of you. No dessert.

I didn't comment further on Mike Cherry's posts about mandatory parental education because I thought that it had no relevance to the case of Cody Hall. Here we had a father who was given clear and simple court-ordered directions that, as a felon, he's not allowed to own any firearms and what does he do? He goes out and get some high-powered illegal assault weapons! And here we have an 18 year old son who was clearly instructed in drivers ed and in DMV pamphlets and literature all about the important responsibilities associated with driving a car, and ensuring the safety of oneself and others while on the road and what does he do? He goes speeding down Foothill at 85 mph! No, classes about parenting or any other subject involving personal responsibility are lost on such people. Some people just have to learn things the hard way.

"Most parents, I believe, tend to unwittingly reproduce both the bad and good aspects of their own parents' practices. A full-scale effort to educate ourselves in parenting, mandated no differently than we mandate kindergarten for our children, might well bring isolated parents into dialogue with others about how best to parent. I do not understand how someone can seriously dismiss this idea by disingenuously applying it to Cody's father after the tragic event has come and gone.

"I am not suggesting mandatory parenting classes as a cure-all by itself. There are many Cody's out there, expressed in any number of bad decisions made by our youth. Many 'bad' kids wind up being 'bad' because their parents haven't had time for them, for any number of assorted reasons. (See, for example, parents forced to work two full-time jobs in order to keep families above poverty line.)

"Nearly 40% of all births today are of single mothers who, after birth, are often forced immediately back into the work world. Who attends to the kids? Like I say, we need 24/7, free, universal on-demand childcare centers so that overwhelmed or distracted or clueless parents have a fallback for raising their kids. This would be good for families, and especially the kids.

"Mandatory parenting classes, combined with universal, free childcare, would begin to move us beyond the sad state we are in where parents unwittingly reproduce the mistakes of their parents. With a genuine commitment by society, we could have less violence, and less criminal activity by our children and young adults."

Posted by Mike Cherry
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 15, 2013 at 12:32 am

I'll not question Sam's competence in physics/chemistry. But studying society is a far more difficult practice. Atoms don't talk back, manipulate and deceive as do people; more relevant, the nature of an atom differs from the nature of a young person's mind.

Fact is, Sam has not demonstrated enough knowledge about Cody and his family to form a reasoned judgment. H doesn't know what kind of upbringing this kid had, what kinds of emotional strains were placed upon him, what kinds of bad parenting he was exposed to, what physical/psychological damage he might have incurred while growing up, what might be the physiological state of his brain, whether he was abused and if so to what extent.

No, instead, Sam has repeatedly upbraided the kid, treating him as an entirely autonomous, rational being when in fact, as Sam himself notes, Cody appears to be the product of some pretty unfortunate parenting. Just how bad was the parenting? And how emotionally scarred/impaired did it leave Cody? Sam doesn't know, and neither do I. So, I urge Sam and others to get off their moral high horses and acknowledge the complexities involved and how we might best prevent more 'Cody's' from happening.

If Sam desires to ignore my briefly stated recommendations, that's certainly his prerogative. But I'd hope he doesn't rationalize his unwillingness to enter into dialogue here on grounds that my suggestions aren't relevant.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 15, 2013 at 10:50 amKathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Your comment was removed, but I can just admit an oversight, that the error was mine, and move on. The sun still came up this morning.

Regarding 24/7 free child care, the problems are many. There have to be limits on how long a child can be in this care each day; the age range of the children who can be placed in this care must be defined; the caretakers should be required to have hours of training in early childcare (not just babysitting skills); the caretakers have to be vetted; where are these facilities to be located; how do you determine the capacity (do you turn away children when you hit the limit; what do you do with children who are sick; if you plan for play areas and sleep areas and teaching areas (not easily all the same space) and perhaps division of age groups, how much square footage is needed; keeping the areas safe and clean (difficult with bedding, for example); and, yes, what is the proposed source of funds. Just saying we must create these facilities is not enough.

I've spent time talking to K12 educators about how to help parents understand the importance of education so they can better support their children. I've seen a few programs that do just that--connecting parents to their students schools and a support system through high school that encourages college attendance. And it appears the governor is trying to make some inroads as well. Teenage pregnancy is continuing it's downward trend, so efforts here are having an impact that will be better for the teens. I am very much in favor of public education, and we chose it over private education for our own children.

As to the subject, I will repeat there is nothing but tragedy for all involved. Despite every opportunity and the best of parenting, teenagers make very bad decisions. (Brain development even has a role.) In this case, one family has suffered the loss of life; the other family is likely to lose their son. I don't believe we can know whether interventions by others could have prevented this event. Certainly we can all speculate about the courts, the parents providing replacement vehicles . . . but only a handful of people know what else the parents were doing or what the environment was. The problem with providing any program is that those who most often need it don't attend.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 15, 2013 at 10:58 amKathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I should add that just being able to place your child in someone else's care, even in the best facilities, does not create better parents. There is a danger that it teaches abdication. There also is no guarantee that simply requiring parenting classes, as you suggested, will change the parents' skills. It might also require testing and home visitations. Those are big hurdles; not impossible, but likely a government leviathan.